Front action Euph's

[tubatom91]

Today I found myself wondering if there are any "professional" Front-action Euphoniums out there. I've only seen top-action euph's used in the professional/higher-education fields, the only front-action euph's I've seen were in middle schools and high schools. Even in High School I've only seen them in the hands of freshman players and on the marching field.
- My intrigue peeks at the thought that nearly all "professional grade" tuba's are front-action. and most pro-players use them. So why aren't there any front-action Euph's out there? (in the professional field)

[eupher61]

Don't both Besson and Willson make front (side) action compensating euphoniums?

Part of the reason for lack of seeing them, by my logic, is that there isn't anyone "big" who uses them.

Piston valved tubas were passee' until the Yorkbrunner came out, then everyone decided they were cool. If the US Military bands, or some of the British bands, would have anyone playing them, the switch would happen.

But, since the bells face different directions, it would be an interesting transition in a section. Tuba sections are used to it.

[GC]

If you look around, you'll find a few companies that make front-valve euphs, and even a few that make rotary valve baris.

[Art Hovey]

Willson makes one that is similar to the Marzan. They had it on display at the Army Tuba Conference last January, but I can't find a picture of it right now.

The story I heard was that when Marzan first started selling front-action compensating euphoniums back in the 70s there was some kind of copyright or patent issue that came up, and he had to try to buy them back. Apparently that issue has finally been resolved, but virtually all of the hotshot euphonium artists in the US and Britain prefer the 3+1 top-action configuration because (a) their right pinkies are not as agile as their left hands, (b) that's what they are used to, and (c) that's what their teachers use.

Most (but not all) tuba players prefer to keep their left hand free for pulling slides. Also many of us find it easier to balance a front-action tuba on our lap. Holding a top-action BAT in playing position is tiresome.

[oldbandnerd]

WILLSON 2975 FRONT ACTION EUPHONIUM

[pgym]

virtually all of the hotshot euphonium artists in the US and Britain prefer the 3+1 top-action configuration because (a) their right pinkies are not as agile as their left hands

It's not the agility of the pinkie, per se that is the issue, it's the impaired agility of the other fingers—particularly the middle and ring fingers—with the pinkie engaged.

[Bob Kolada]

virtually all of the hotshot euphonium artists in the US and Britain prefer the 3+1 top-action configuration because (a) their right pinkies are not as agile as their left hands

It's not the agility of the pinkie, per se that is the issue, it's the impaired agility of the other fingers—particularly the middle and ring fingers—with the pinkie engaged.

However, tubas have longer valve strokes/crappier valves and most "nice" tubas have 4 valves in a row.


"Nice" front valve euph-things that I am aware of-
-Getzen/Willson/.... piston NON-comp horns; pretty uncommon
-Willson and Marzan euphs like what bloke has
-MW 49 (euph sized rotary horn)
-Miraphone, Alexander,... rotary horns; taller than regular piston euphs; I thought Rudy Meinl made a huge one with a 13" bell and corresponding valve set bore but am not sure
-custom horns! though I've never seen one
-bell up or front American baritones; the only 4 valver (a Connstellation) I played sucked, but I've played some wonderful King and Conn 3 valvers*

In fact, a 4 valve fixed bell front (as the lead pipe on the removable bell horns is quite low, and I am quite tall!) is my "old man bass trombone." They have a .56x valve bore, so a valve section from a .547 (almost universally with .562 valve bores) trombone would be cut down to a full 1 step 5th valve after the piston valves. Having it able to get an in tune whole step would allow me to use it for all the low range valve pulls and pushes, as generally these horns have useless-almost useless valve slides elsewhere.

*The nice ones I've played have a strong, relatively lean low range with excellent false tones (would still want the 5th on this horn though). A bigger, somewhat shallow "jazz bass trombone" mouthpiece would be awesome in one.
This is what I plan to play after my left elbow gives out (tight angle due to my long arms!). It'd also be easier to play higher 4th/5th trombone parts (in jazz band for instance) than on a cimbasso!

[pgym]

virtually all of the hotshot euphonium artists in the US and Britain prefer the 3+1 top-action configuration because (a) their right pinkies are not as agile as their left hands

It's not the agility of the pinkie, per se that is the issue, it's the impaired agility of the other fingers—particularly the middle and ring fingers—with the pinkie engaged.

However, tubas have longer valve strokes/crappier valves and most "nice" tubas have 4 valves in a row.

But that's dictated by the fact that the length of a tuba dictates that even compentent tubists must pull slides to compensate for intonation discrepancies, whereas a reasonably competent euphoniumist can usually lip discrepant notes into tune.

[druby]

History has a lot to do with the demise of the front action euphonium. Prior to WWII, all top line military bands used front action, bell front horns, usually 5-valve double bell horns. As the story goes, in 1939 or 1940, a British cruiser (with band) called at the DC Navy Yard. Their band instruments were worn out and none were to be had in the UK due to the war effort, so the US Navy swapped a new set of American made instruments for their worn out British horns. Harold Brasch found one of the surplus Besson euphoniums in the equipment room and tried it. He found out it played better aqnd sounded much darker and richer than the Conn professional horns they had been playing.

As a result, after the war, when the English-built horns became available, the US Navy band (Brasch and Arthur Lehman in particular) changed over to the compensating Besson horns. Eventually the rest of the military and top college bands followed suit. I know that by the early 60-'s Bill Revelli told me about the new Boosey & Hawkes euphoniums that the Univ. of Mich. were using. By the mid-1970's, the patent on the compensating system ran out and Yamaha and others started making Besson clones. Conn exited the euphonium business as did Holton and others. King continued to make the 2266 (a 4 valve bell front) but the day of the american style front valve, bell front horn was gone.

I played Conn Connstellations throughout HS and got my first Besson experience during my senior year in 1969. What a difference! The 3+1 upright compensating horn was SOOO much easier to play and had a much larger, robust sound. As most high-level amateur and all professional players do today, I play a 3+1 pro-level euphonium. I still own a Conn Connstellation and love to play on the horn, but I only use it for performance during parades.

Whether bell front or valve-front is preferaable to a 3+1 upright compensating horn is really not the issue. The issue is historical record favored the sound quality and playability of the British-style euphonium and ALL professional horns except the Willlson 2975 made today have that configuration.

Doug

[Ryan_Beucke]

Whether bell front or valve-front is preferaable to a 3+1 upright compensating horn is really not the issue. The issue is historical record favored the sound quality and playability of the British-style euphonium and ALL professional horns except the Willlson 2975 made today have that configuration.

Doug

Although to clarify, I believe the 2975 has the same dimensions as a 2950, just with the tubing wrapped in a different way. I have played one, and it did seem like it sounded different, but I think that it was because I am so used to hearing the sound come out of the other side. I did really like it though and thought that if I were in a position to, I would not mind switching to that configuration!